As for your explanation about the Hittites. I thank you for that bit of information. You seem to enjoy history, or dare I say, are passionate about history. That's how I feel about animals. If you're so passionate about history then why are we arguing? You should be slamming the Bible for making false historical claims, which it does. Noah and the Ark is a case in point. Dogma! nice one. I'm taking notes I really am. Unfortunately like Prince of Egypt, it's pre 9/11. A time when as I stated earlier, the danger of religious ideas was not as apparent. Give me a post 9/11 one. And yes I got Kingdom of Heaven whoever posted that, touche.

You're right, I am passionate about history, and while I do not accept the tenants and morals in the Bible, I do accept that there are certain historical figures that are mentioned in the Bible which give us the ability to try and find them in history. It's a starting point for historical research. A launchpad from where we can prove or disprove claims that have been made. Like it or lump it, those Roman records which you dismissed earlier verify that a chappy called Jesus was crucified and that he was an insurgent against the Roman Empire. The fact that Jesus was actually a fairly common name (and still is in certain Latino communities) is neither here nor there. The whole son of God thing is a separate issue.

Now in relation to Noah and the Ark, it's a story. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. Aronofsky isn't going to be making this out to be some factual thing no more than Jackson put forward Lord of the Rings as a fact base for the history of our Middle Ages, or that Columbus made Hogwarts a real boarding school. He's also not suggesting for a second that animal migration happened because someone decided to give a lift to a hitch-hiking giraffe. I have to say your passion for animals in this case is misguided and aimed towards something that, at the moment, there's very little knowledge about.

If this film ends up being put forward as fact rather than a 2012 style disaster, I'll take it all back.

Given all the current 'rising sea levels' stuff that is the end of the world/tax raising scenario (take your pick) du jour, isn't it more likely than not that the 'parable for the ages' nature of the story is the most important for the film, and therefore in tune with the 'save the animals' attitude of TODAY that it be in tune with/be propaganda for (take your pick)?

And I am not in the least surprised Bale didn't want a part of this, the 'YOU'RE A NICE GUY' rant still hasn't gone away, and obviously I'm guessing, but I suspect he thought 'fuck me, the moment word gets out about this, there'd be even more uploading of stuff relating to that embarrassing day, Noah losing his rag, and Batman Versus Noah bullshit, so no, I am not playing Noah'.

Well, he tends to make films involving people on a downward spiral into mental, physical or mental AND physical destruction/self destruction (even the fountain has that kind of thing, but via a cautionary tale to prevent Jackman's character ending up becoming destroyed by grief). Addiction/madness, obsession/madness, perfectionism/madness, skewed self image/madness, continuing down a path even though it will almost certainly lead to debilitating injury or death/madness are his playground.

So it's PSYCHO NOAH, building his Ark while all around him mock him, until he is almost completely isolated and alone, then the flood comes, but portrayed in a way that could be read as either he was right, or he's insane, and it's not really happening...

Or, similar to the above, with him being determined to build his Ark, everybody thinking he's insane, but he's not. Which would allow all the usual touchstones, only instead of the character descending into madness/destruction it works out ok for him. Anyone obsessed with something/following a path that by all objective analysis appears foolhardy can look like a nutter to some people, so Aranofsky can cover the usual ground of such behaviour, with a more certain outcome. And he can do this without it being relevant to his film at all that the story comes from The Bible.

Religious people can see it as a celebration of faith in God, non religious people can see it as a triumph for a man standing alone against a society that would prefer him to behave more 'normally'.

Pure speculation of course, but totally based on seeing the guy's films so far, and if he keeps to his usual M.O re the things underpinning his films regardless of what the surface story happens to be, he may make a film that is open to whatever interpretation suits the viewer from the two suggested above, without actually alienating anybody .

ORIGINAL: Englebertnightingale What I am contending is the animal migration via Noah's Ark. I am contending the popularising of this myth because it steals the thunder of the beautiful and real story.

Is that what the story of Noah's Ark does? I was under the impression he took them from Point A to Point B on a mountain top... then they all went their separate ways.

I don't think he dropped particular species off on particular continents.

Or did he?

Not in my bible.

My bible says he stopped off for a McDonalds on the way home.

Well he would have had to eat the fish burger or a vegetarian option, because the last two chickens and the last two cows and the last two pigs were wandering down Mt. Ararat side by side with various female and male predatory animals such as foxes and wolves, who were being patient so as not to eat the last two chickens. It would have also had to be an automated store run by robots, as he was the last human. See how flawed the story or fable or religious claim is, no matter what you add to it or how you patch it up it's a stupid story. although your joke was funny. if anything it should be a comedy.

Well, not true. Clean animals and Birds went on the Ark in Sevens. So Cattle and Chicken he had one spare, after the flood he made an offering of them in burnt offerings on an alter. Maccy Ds for definite.

Well he would have had to eat the fish burger or a vegetarian option, because the last two chickens and the last two cows and the last two pigs were wandering down Mt. Ararat side by side with various female and male predatory animals such as foxes and wolves, who were being patient so as not to eat the last two chickens. It would have also had to be an automated store run by robots, as he was the last human. See how flawed the story or fable or religious claim is, no matter what you add to it or how you patch it up it's a stupid story. although your joke was funny. if anything it should be a comedy.

This ^ is officially how to kill a joke stone dead people.

_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts And I looked and behold, a pale horse And his name that sat on him was Death And Hell followed with him.

Apologies for dropping out of the debate. But I needed some sleep. I have now returned and am looking forward to debating with you, and wow what a debate it is. A prickly and multifaceted one concerning Hollywood, a divisive director, religion, and a war of ideologies about where we came from.

I will begin with rebuttals because boy did I get attacked last night.

Lukeyboy (1)

quote:

' the Bible contains some bloody good stories! Personally I'd like to see this.'

Personally, I'm looking forward to Skyfall because it's going to kick ass, but if you want to look forward to 'Bloody good Bible stories' then all the best to you.

Timon (1)

quote:

'...And they [animals] also don't talk, but Diney tells us otherwise.'

Do you mean human speech? then What about parrots or lyrebirds?

Or do you mean animal communication? let me answer this for you. No. You don't mean animal communication, because you're too human-centric to realise that animals also can communicate through other means.

Timon (2)

quote:

'I'm a lovely, lovely atheist and love the likes of Ben Hur, The Ten Commandments and The Prince of Egypt.'

And I get criticised for calling myself a man of science? I never said I was a lovely, lovely man of science. Had I used lovely, lovely, would I have been the underdog in last nights debate? think about it y'all.

Also, in my opinion, a lovely, lovely athiest who loves biblical movies is a very unusual athiest. I think more likely a confused agnostic.

Timon (3)

quote:

'Prometheus was all about how the Greek titan gave mankind fire, would you say that was also spreading propaganda?'

No. Because it's a dead religion. It's officially myth. Noahs Ark is not officially myth. There are milliions of creationists who believe in Noahs Ark and it is preventing us as a global community from truly understanding the world around us and the living things with which we share this world. As a result of this ideological congestion, we are unable to successfully change the situation because we collectively don't recognise the value in what we are destroying on a daily basis.

Timon (4)

quote:

'Just like Charlton Heston's career sank without a trace and no-one went to see Ben Hur and The Ten Commandments. Oh wait.'

'

Watch the Michael Moore documentary 'Bowling For Columbine' and then tell me what you think about Charlton Heston. Oh wait.'

quote:

Darron Aronofsky: 'Culturally, I am Jewish. I was raised slightly Jewish, with respect for my culture and my ancestry, but with an open mind to the connectivity of people.'

Darren (1) aren't you American as well? Does it even factor? I understand national identities can be abstract, but....

Pigeon Army (1)

quote:

'(I mean my god I found this interview with two seconds of fucking Googling)'

Perhaps 'your god' guided you to the website. Or perhaps he bestowed upon you the gift of googling. Either way, I'm sure he's displeased with your potty mouth.

Funkyrae (1)

quote:

'Just so when you are argue you're arguing fact and not emotion.'

If Barack Obama argued without emotion, he probably wouldn't be president. Fact and emotion are natural bedfellows. It's lies and emotion that don't sit well together. LIes usually come out lifelessly like most of the statements and lame critiques in this forum.

Timon (5)

quote:

'Doesn't shout pro religious Biblical epic? It's about Moses! And the Exodus! And the 10 Commandments!'

Yes but it's cunningly titled 'Prince of Egypt'. Presenting itself as just another animated adventure for the whole family. When really there's an undercurrent of religious propaganda.

Timon (6)

quote:

'For all we know, Aronfosky's Noah will think the same'

Possibly, I do appreciate the 'wait and see' sentiment rattling around the forum, but I've got a feeling that he wont. I've got a feeling that this will be a change of gears for him, establishing himself with an epic like when Kubrick did 2001. But Kubriks 2001 shone it's light on evolution.

Pigeon Army (2)

quote:

'Get off your high horse, "man of science"'

Let's not forget whose side I'm arguing for..... the animals, including the high horses. So, no. I won't get off my high horse, we're on the same team. How about you try to see this from the high horses point of view.

jcthefirst (1)

quote:

Some people believe in God. Some people don't. THE END.

Could you have a more apathetic opinion?

Funkyrae (2)

quote:

'Ti, this is someone who can blithely ignore historical evidence. What on earth makes you think he's going to understand the difference?'

Funkyrae, I don't 'blithely do anything. I don't even know what 'blithely' means. Anyway the whole historical evidence argument is finished!, it's history! in which case, you should be lapping it up.

Funkyrae (3)

quote:

'...........there's still a living connection to them then you have major problems mate'

Funkyrae. I'm not your mate. Mates listen to one another.

Rgirvan44 (1)

quote:

'How disappointed I was when my eyes passed this bit, that it wasn't what I intally thought it was.'

Can you elaborate? I have no Idea what you mean.

Funkyrae (4)

quote:

'Paul, Angels & Demons'

Nice. Coming through with the goods.

elab49 (1)

quote:

'You realise that, by definition, you're given the bible more credence than it deserves'

Do you mean: 'Do I realise this?' I don't realise this. Can you explain in more detail how I am giving the Bible more credence?

elab49 (2)

quote:

quote:

'Why not simply go with the common idea that it's been debunked as anything more than an often nicely written work of fiction and as open to fictional adaptation as anything?'

I don't quite understand the suggestion, but it sounds a little apathetic. Common ideas aren't necessarily good ideas. After all religions are common ideas.

No. not 'nothing' or 'someone'. I'm much more specific than you give me credit for.

My argument distilled might be something more like this:

'Noah's Ark, was a biblical story once written. Henceforth many religious people have believed it to be a true event. Some religious people might not believe it was a true event, but still turn up at church on Sunday because they're addicted to the wafers and consumed with guilt for god knows what. I classify this story as a religious claim because religious people claim it is true. I have a problem with this religious claim. My problem is that there is no scientific evidence for this religious claim. Some people in this Empire forum attribute historical references to a big flood. I do not dispute the flood. I do not care about the flood. I care specifically about the animal migration.'

elab49 (4)

quote:

'I'm assuming that will include disputing the works of great scientists of the past, the discoveries on which others have built.'

'.....You're never going to be on my team in a general knowledge quiz'

What a shame, for you I mean as you're clearly lacking in that department.

Spaldron (1)

quote:

'There are pointless debates and there are pointless debates........

And then there's this.'

And what is this Spaldron? Please share.

Rgirvan44 (2)

quote:

'The Bible isn't a histroical document, but rather a document that informs us about history.'

'a document that informs us about history' all the more reason to remain objective about it and to evaluate its messages and most certainly to challenge and question critically its scientific claims especially as we develop deeper scientific understandings continually.

Rgirvan44 (3)

quote:

'And the Flood myth appears in just about every religion - so either something did happen, or this is an example of the collective myth building at work. Certain ideas and images repeat themselves.'

Are we on the same page? I can't figure it out.

jobloffski (1)

quote:

' Given all the current 'rising sea levels' stuff that is the end of the world/tax raising scenario (take your pick) du jour, isn't it more likely than not that the 'parable for the ages' nature of the story is the most important for the film, and therefore in tune with the 'save the animals' attitude of TODAY that it be in tune with/be propaganda for (take your pick)?'

Finally someone with a level-headed perspective and fresh ideas. Funkyrae could do with taking a leaf out of your book.

Invader_Ace (1)

quote:

'Well, not true.† Clean animals and Birds went on the Ark in Sevens.'

Please read you statement again. Then consider fact and science using rational thought. You're not in a position to tell me what's not true about something for which there is no evidence it is true in the first place.

' Given all the current 'rising sea levels' stuff that is the end of the world/tax raising scenario (take your pick) du jour, isn't it more likely than not that the 'parable for the ages' nature of the story is the most important for the film, and therefore in tune with the 'save the animals' attitude of TODAY that it be in tune with/be propaganda for (take your pick)?'

Finally someone with a level-headed perspective and fresh ideas. Funkyrae could do with taking a leaf out of your book.

You realise don't you that Jobloffski is actually arguing in FAVOUR of the film that you so abhor. You know, the whole film about Noah's Ark that you've been stating from the word go shouldn't be made?

As for me taking a leaf out of his book, in what way? I'm really not getting that at all.

Also, a tad concerning that as a teacher you don't understand basic English.

I don't mind being called 'the mad scientist' at all and fitting too as I am beginning to feel a little mad as no-one in here can see how ridiculous the story of Noah's Ark is. It's ridiculous. It's only that it has been around for so long that we accept it. Think of RIcky Gervais and his take on nursery rhymes. (be sure to youtube it if you haven't seen it.) He talks about how ridiculous Humpty Dumpty is.

If i was to create a new myth right this instant you would say I was mad. Let's try shall we:

Let's say that an enormous intergalactic hen passing through our solar system laid an egg which fell upon the then dry lifeless earth. Upon hitting the earths surface, It's shell shattered open and an ocean came came gushing out. Thus biodiversity was born. Some time later the hen returned and bestowed mystical powers upon a crab. That crab became a man, and that man established a petting zoo.

You would say I was mad wouldn't you? but all of those biblical myths get off scott free because they're part of an estabilshed religion that is taboo to criticize. And as such, we let these ridiculous ideas inform our understanding of the world around us.

I was merely pointing out the historical aspects. Those historical aspects that you chose to completely ignore. Call it "waffling" if you like, however it would be wise to be sure of all of your facts before you try to argue a case otherwise you're coming across as a total idiot. The fact that you blithely (see, there's that basic English word you don't understand again) choose to ignore absolute historical basics (yeah, I remember "I prefer Beatles records to Roman ones) doesn't exactly give you much credibility.

The problem here is that you've been shown to be absolutely and totally out on so many things but you simply won't accept it. Fine, live in your own isolated little bubble, it must be so much fun. In the meanwhile, the rest of us will live in the real world.

I don't mind being called 'the mad scientist' at all and fitting too as I am beginning to feel a little mad as no-one in here can see how ridiculous the story of Noah's Ark is. It's ridiculous. It's only that it has been around for so long that we accept it. Think of RIcky Gervais and his take on nursery rhymes. (be sure to youtube it if you haven't seen it.) He talks about how ridiculous Humpty Dumpty is.

If i was to create a new myth right this instant you would say I was mad. Let's try shall we:

Let's say that an enormous intergalactic hen passing through our solar system laid an egg which fell upon the then dry lifeless earth. Upon hitting the earths surface, It's shell shattered open and an ocean came came gushing out. Thus biodiversity was born. Some time later the hen returned and bestowed mystical powers upon a crab. That crab became a man, and that man established a petting zoo.

You would say I was mad wouldn't you? but all of those biblical myths get off scott free because they're part of an estabilshed religion that is taboo to criticize. And as such, we let these ridiculous ideas inform our understanding of the world around us.

What part of what has been said here are you not understanding? Nobody. NOT ONE PERSON has stated that they believe the story of Noah's Ark. Nobody here is stating any Biblical story is fact.

'...And they [animals] also don't talk, but Diney tells us otherwise.'

Do you mean human speech? then What about parrots or lyrebirds?

Or do you mean animal communication? let me answer this for you. No. You don't mean animal communication, because you're too human-centric to realise that animals also can communicate through other means.

Sigh.

quote:

Timon (2)

quote:

'I'm a lovely, lovely atheist and love the likes of Ben Hur, The Ten Commandments and The Prince of Egypt.'

Also, in my opinion, a lovely, lovely athiest who loves biblical movies is a very unusual athiest. I think more likely a confused agnostic.

That's ridiculous. It's like saying "If you like Men in Black, you believe in conspiracy theories."

quote:

Timon (3)

quote:

'Prometheus was all about how the Greek titan gave mankind fire, would you say that was also spreading propaganda?'

No. Because it's a dead religion. It's officially myth. Noahs Ark is not officially myth. There are milliions of creationists who believe in Noahs Ark and it is preventing us as a global community from truly understanding the world around us and the living things with which we share this world. As a result of this ideological congestion, we are unable to successfully change the situation because we collectively don't recognise the value in what we are destroying on a daily basis.

I am very aware of how dangerous religion is - especially with the many Christians who in power who actually believe in The Rapture and therefore have no reason to what to stop the end of the world, BUT you are giving this film far more credit and power than it deserves.

quote:

Timon (4)

quote:

'Just like Charlton Heston's career sank without a trace and no-one went to see Ben Hur and The Ten Commandments. Oh wait.'

'

Watch the Michael Moore documentary 'Bowling For Columbine' and then tell me what you think about Charlton Heston. Oh wait.'

I've seen it. He had Alzheimer's at the time of the interview. While I don't condone what he or the NRA did, Michael Moore going after a very confused man was a bit one-sided. Plus the man's political views have changed a lot if the past 40 years.

quote:

Timon (5)

quote:

'Doesn't shout pro religious Biblical epic? It's about Moses! And the Exodus! And the 10 Commandments!'

Yes but it's cunningly titled 'Prince of Egypt'. Presenting itself as just another animated adventure for the whole family. When really there's an undercurrent of religious propaganda.

The propaganda of....?

quote:

Timon (6)

quote:

'For all we know, Aronfosky's Noah will think the same'

Possibly, I do appreciate the 'wait and see' sentiment rattling around the forum, but I've got a feeling that he wont. I've got a feeling that this will be a change of gears for him, establishing himself with an epic like when Kubrick did 2001. But Kubriks 2001 shone it's light on evolution.

Aronfosky was quoted today saying, ďI donít think itís a very religious storyÖ I think itís a great fable thatís part of so many different religions and spiritual practices. I just think itís a great story thatís never been on film ... Heís a dark, complicated character. The tragedies we perform on each other are so well reported. Quite clearly, the planet is dying, and we are dying on it.Ē

"I put no stock in religion. By the word 'religion', I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called 'The Will of God'. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves."

Hey everyone, I just wanna apologise. I'm new round here. as you can see I'm a ninja in training. I have 2 stars. I probably haven't done myself any favours in making friends in the empire forums but I hope that will change in the future as we discuss the nuances of upcoming films.

I know, I said some harsh things at times but I assure you, it was all in the spirit of the debate. If you corner a wild animal it will lash out in its defence. I now see clearly that I was that cornered wild animal and I did lash out, intellectually.

I said some nasty things of which I'm not proud, but then some nasty things were said to me too. Funkyrae, I owe you a special apology for that cheap quip about the Hittites. Timon I now understand why you are a forum elder, your wisdom and film knowledge spans eras which I know little about which makes me think, you're probably older than me right? But for the record, I do like Men in Black and I do believe in conspiracy theories, one of which is that The Prince of Egypt contained subliminal propaganda messages. A bit like Abu swearing in Aladdin but instead of swear words from a monkey messages enticing the audience to visit church were embedded into the muttering of a goat in the plaza.

So forum elders, to quote King Aragorn, shall we be friends? 'What say you? what say you?'

A bit like Apu swearing in Aladdin but instead of swear words from a monkey messages enticing the audience to visit church were embedded into the muttering of a goat in the plaza.

I'm sorry, what?

_____________________________

"I put no stock in religion. By the word 'religion', I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called 'The Will of God'. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves."

"That Terminator / religious zealot / atheist zealot / troll* is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead / driven insane by the lack of logic*."

A bit like Abu swearing in Aladdin but instead of swear words from a monkey messages enticing the audience to visit church were embedded into the muttering of a goat in the plaza.

I'm sorry, what?

I don't know if I can make it any clearer than that. Did you not know about Abu swearing?

Not that, your comment about a goat telling people to go to church. Where the hell is this?!

_____________________________

"I put no stock in religion. By the word 'religion', I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called 'The Will of God'. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves."